Challenges document comments and discussion

<scribe> scribe: janina

<jeanne2> Peter: We have been working on the Challenges document

<jeanne2> ... we added a background section

peter: Added a "Background" section to point to some original thinking of the 2.x design
... Conformance defined only for pages, though a claim might come for a series or multiple set of pages
... Notes the dictionary defines that in terms of a small number
... Started a section of non-web ICT
... Some things may not be as testable in a nonweb context
... More examples of specific SC that rely on human involvement
... Plan to get this up ahead of our Friday call

jeanne: Talked with AGWG Chairs and note this doc is on the agenda for AGWG telecon next Tuesday
... Will send you the call data

peter: Rereading conformance drove home how narrow our thinking was--only for sreally usable on small sites

jeanne: We need to try to get this into our FPWD, so need to discuss how to do that

peter: agree

Pulling together Bronze equivalence discussion into a proposal

jeanne: We've been discussing bronze equivalence, or non equivalence and we need to pull our thinking into a proposal
... Can we determine how we want to address this? I will then ask for volunteers

peter: Like our last discussion--where not a direct equivalence but rather a "grandfathering" concept
... So, not equivalent to, but "we accept as being sufficient to meet bronze"

jeanne: My apologies if I get confused what was discussed in what meeting but ...
... Thought to set minimum requirements in each category per EN
... And people would then need additional points to reach bronze and beyond

peter: recallin other analogies, e.g. credits transfered from community college to University

jeanne: wouldn't need to map each ...
... someone has already done this ...

<jeanne2> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sKSXs62C8Q2t5Ek8SrDC6ajBGucBzAVH0ElZpN9KajY/edit#gid=0

peter: Notes this also maps to the cvaa
... cvaa maps 13 things
... all the regs are borrowing from each other

jeanne: yes

peter: I do question some of these -- limited manipulation or strength e.g.
... How does the page have to do with what's on the kiosk?

<Fazio> Limited manipulation makes sense related to a mouse or track pad

<Fazio> probably not strength though

janina: Speaks up for becoming clear as to what applies to ua vs content providers

peter: but even beyond that

jeanne: it's about repeated keypress

peter: but my at may be voice based
... my only point is we should discuss further before adopting

jeanne: OK. Wasn't thinking of adopting -- just giving us a start on what goes where
... Was looking to help us come up with a baseline
... no flashing; no keyboard trap; etc
... login ... very much baseline

peter: agree with establishing a core, "most important"
... Only concerned what we have isn't quite it

jeanne: we need to avoid allowing people to focus soley on one disability area
... are we ready to have a discussion on what should be a minimum

peter: It was your idea! :)
... Believe we have several groups who defined their approaches
... Recalling such from Jim Thatcher at some point
... perhaps studying our history in this to see whether there's a cohevise logical subset of WCAG that hang together and make sense as a minimum

<jeanne2> Non-Interference Criteria https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc5

peter: Of course we want more ...

jeanne: Pointing again to the noninterference

janina: suggests some should be marked with an equivalent of the old wcag 1 "until user agents"

peter: Another minimum set might be Level A
... Not arguing for any particular set, just that we should look

jenison: I'm liking A

jeanne: but it may be biased to certain disabilities, and we need to be careful of that
... I do expect we'll have a strong representation from A, but I don't want to just limit us to that
... Looks at the Level A quickref ...

peter: so our grandfathering might need to stop at 2.0

<pkorn_> Am I no longer audible?

jeanne: believe parsing is on the way out, and name-role value too complicated for a minimum

<jeanne2> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/?currentsidebar=%23col_customize&levels=aa%2Caaa&versions=2.0

peter: Another would be to filter on what is programmatically evaluatable
... Another is on need for human eval
... Another may be on media alternative -- might draw a "who created it?" objection. Movies from the 30's? They won't be described!
... cost is still around 19 dollars per minute for description

jeanne: Not sure Level A is the good minimum subset
... What if we tried X number for disability types; 3 for no vision, 3 for hearing loss, etc

peter: seems arbitrary

jeanne: but fair

peter: not necessarily

angela: might seem fair because of the qual number but may not provide adequate minimum to achieve access

jeanne: OK, I'm persuaded that's a bad idea!

<Makoto> WAI's Easy Checks https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/preliminary/

makoto: Have a WAI Easy Test as a possible minimum
... they're common issues when I'm auditing pages. I see the same issues over and over

<jeanne2> Easy CHecks:

<jeanne2> Page Contents

<jeanne2> Page title

<jeanne2> Image text alternatives ("alt text") (pictures, illustrations, charts, etc.)

<jeanne2> Text:

<jeanne2> Headings

<jeanne2> Contrast ratio ("color contrast")

<jeanne2> Resize Text

<jeanne2> Interaction:

<jeanne2> Keyboard access and visual focus

<jeanne2> Forms, labels, and errors (including Search fields)

<jeanne2> General:

<jeanne2> Moving, Flashing, or Blinking Content

<jeanne2> Multimedia (video, audio) alternatives

<jeanne2> Basic Structure Check

jeanne: doesn't cover all the noninterference, but ...

jenison what a list, though

jeanne: yes

janina: proposes this may be a good starting point, even if it proves insufficient

jeanne: sees nothing for coga

peter: wonders how we get coga in

angela: worries they may perceive it as anothe rslight

<Fazio> persistent labels

jeanne: recalls part of the coga problem had been inability to evaluate with true/false test

<Fazio> is an SC in the works

jeanne: we're changing those rules now

<Fazio> for COGA

jeanne: persistent labels?

jenison: you see the label until you click in to fill the field and the label disappears
... also had the concept that entered data would persist and not be required a second time again later in the form process

jeanne: might be useful to ask coga what a good minimum might be from their perspective
... we need to be careful that we're not setting up some kind of new Silver A and excluding them in that

jeanne; But we should hear from them about what absolutely everyone must do

Fazio: how soon?

jeanne: general feedback would be helpful at this point. this is exploratory

<Fazio> that was David Fazio not jennisomn

<Fazio> about the labels

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/set/quickref/
Succeeded: s/cents/dollars/
Succeeded: s/later/again later/
Succeeded: s/jenison/Fazio/
Default Present: jeanne, janina, pkorn_, Makoto, AngelaAccessForAll, Fazio

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: jeanne2, janina)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ jeanne, janina

Present: jeanne janina pkorn_ Makoto AngelaAccessForAll Fazio
Found Scribe: janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina
Found Date: 08 Oct 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)